Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200

AMD

Athlon 64 4000+

1 Cores1 Thrd89 WWMax: 2.6 GHz2001
Similar parts
·······
VS
Intel

Celeron E1200

2 Cores2 Thrd65 WWMax: 1.6 GHz2008
Similar parts
·······

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200 Performance Spectrum

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 4000+

2001

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.4 vs 12.5 PassMark/$ ($482 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
    • 36.9% higher power demand at 89W vs 65W.

    Celeron E1200

    2008

    Why buy it

    • Costs $429 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
    • Delivers 796.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.5 vs 1.4 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $482 MSRP).
    • Draws 65W instead of 89W, a 24W reduction.

    Trade-offs

    • Lower PassMark (665 vs 675).

    Quick Answers

    So, is Athlon 64 4000+ better than Celeron E1200?
    Yes. Athlon 64 4000+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Athlon 64 4000+ has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 62.5% higher max boost clock.
    Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
    For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 4000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Athlon 64 4000+ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Athlon 64 4000+ comes in 809.4% more expensive on MSRP at $482 MSRP versus $53 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% higher PassMark. Celeron E1200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 796.0% better value on paper (12.5 vs 1.4 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Celeron E1200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

    Athlon 64 4000+ vs Celeron E1200 Technical Specifications

    Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

    AMD

    Athlon 64 4000+

    The Athlon 64 4000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $160.

    Intel

    Celeron E1200

    The Celeron E1200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Allendale (2006−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $40.

    Processing Power

    The Athlon 64 4000+ packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron E1200 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron E1200 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Athlon 64 4000+ versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron E1200 — a 47.6% clock advantage for the Athlon 64 4000+. The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the San Diego (2001−2005) architecture (130 nm), while the Celeron E1200 uses Allendale (2006−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 4000+ scores 675 against the Celeron E1200's 665 — a 1.5% lead for the Athlon 64 4000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

    FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Celeron E1200
    Cores / Threads
    1 / 1
    2 / 2+100%
    Boost Clock
    2.6 GHz+63%
    1.6 GHz
    Base Clock
    1.6 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    0 kB
    L2 Cache
    512K
    512 kB (total)
    Process
    130 nm
    65 nm-50%
    Architecture
    San Diego (2001−2005)
    Allendale (2006−2009)
    PassMark
    675+2%
    665
    Geekbench 6 Single
    210
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    380
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon 64 4000+ uses the 939 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron E1200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR2-800 memory speed. The Athlon 64 4000+ supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: AMD AM2 (Athlon 64 4000+) and G31,P35,G41 (Celeron E1200).

    FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Celeron E1200
    Socket
    939
    LGA775
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 1.1
    PCIe 1.1
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR2-800
    DDR2-800
    Max RAM Capacity
    16 GB+100%
    8 GB
    RAM Channels
    2
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    0
    0
    🔧

    Advanced Features

    Virtualization: not specified (Athlon 64 4000+) / No (Celeron E1200). Primary use case: Celeron E1200 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E1200 rivals Pentium E2140.

    FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Celeron E1200
    Integrated GPU
    No
    No
    Unlocked
    No
    AVX-512
    No
    Virtualization
    No
    Target Use
    Budget
    💰

    Value Analysis

    At launch, the Athlon 64 4000+ was priced at $482, while the Celeron E1200 came in at $53. On launch pricing ($482 vs $53), Celeron E1200 was $429 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon 64 4000+ delivers 1.4 pts/$ vs 12.5 pts/$ for the Celeron E1200 — making the Celeron E1200 the 159.8% better value option.

    FeatureAthlon 64 4000+Celeron E1200
    MSRP
    $482
    $53-89%
    Performance per Dollar
    1.4
    12.5+793%
    Release Date
    2001
    2008

    Affiliate Disclosure

    ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

    Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.